niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
CONTEXT: Her objective is to ensure Palmer is killed - and Jack is the best way to get the phone bomb close to him. The Drazens planned this but saw an opportunity to get Alexis free by trading him for Jack. Therefore Nina basically has to get Alexis free for the Drazen to make the final assasination attempt  <sep>  Q: Why does Nina Myers call Palmer in episode 22 to help save Jack from the Drazens? A: Her objective is to ensure Palmer is killed - and Jack is the best way to get the phone bomb close to him  Q: Okay, I'm confused about one thing...why did Nina help Jack if she was a mole? A: The Drazens planned this but saw an opportunity to get Alexis free by trading him for Jack  Q: Oh I see, why does Nina unexpectedly call Palmer and asks him to help save Jack in episode 22? A: Her objective is to ensure Palmer is killed - and Jack is the best way to get the phone bomb close to him  Q: Okay, but why would she go out of her way when she obviously didn't have to? A: Nina basically has to get Alexis free for the Drazen to make the final assasination attempt  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Anything else you found interesting about this series?
Output: No
CONTEXT: He's clearly gesturing for them to take cover Essentially, the waving of the arms is meant to imply "get down"...out of harms way from the attack that is forthcoming. I suspect that this is intended to show that the attack was aimed at military targets and that even Japanese airmen/military weren't above showing some humanity.  <sep>  Q: What's this Japanese bomber machine gunner gesturing with his arms?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: He's clearly gesturing for them to take cover Essentially, the waving of the arms is meant to imply "get down"...out of harms way from the attack that is forthcoming. I suspect that this is intended to show that the attack was aimed at military targets and that even Japanese airmen/military weren't above showing some humanity.  <sep>  Q: What's this Japanese bomber machine gunner gesturing with his arms? A: He's clearly gesturing for them to take cover  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why are the bombers flying over teenagers playing baseball?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: He's clearly gesturing for them to take cover Essentially, the waving of the arms is meant to imply "get down"...out of harms way from the attack that is forthcoming. I suspect that this is intended to show that the attack was aimed at military targets and that even Japanese airmen/military weren't above showing some humanity.  <sep>  Q: What's this Japanese bomber machine gunner gesturing with his arms? A: He's clearly gesturing for them to take cover  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Are you speaking about the gesturing at the 1:27 mark?
Output: No
CONTEXT: He's clearly gesturing for them to take cover Essentially, the waving of the arms is meant to imply "get down"...out of harms way from the attack that is forthcoming. I suspect that this is intended to show that the attack was aimed at military targets and that even Japanese airmen/military weren't above showing some humanity.  <sep>  Q: What's this Japanese bomber machine gunner gesturing with his arms? A: He's clearly gesturing for them to take cover  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is it actually possible that Pearl Harbor came out in 2001, doesn't seem that long ago?
Output: No
CONTEXT: He's clearly gesturing for them to take cover Essentially, the waving of the arms is meant to imply "get down"...out of harms way from the attack that is forthcoming. I suspect that this is intended to show that the attack was aimed at military targets and that even Japanese airmen/military weren't above showing some humanity.  <sep>  Q: What's this Japanese bomber machine gunner gesturing with his arms? A: He's clearly gesturing for them to take cover  Q: Why are the bombers flying over teenagers playing baseball? A: I suspect that this is intended to show that the attack was aimed at military targets and that even Japanese airmen/military weren't above showing some humanity  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What was the outcome?
Output: No
CONTEXT: It appears to be a stylistic decision on the part of Andy Serkis and Steven Spielberg, and is in keeping with Hollywood's fascination for Scottish accents (see the Vikings in How to Train Your Dragon, Shrek, the lack of a Welsh Smurf). Naturally, fans are up in arms about this, especially those who think he should have an English accent (specifically Cornish), but this is also wrong as Herge wrote him as a Belgian, like his young friend, Tintin. Haddock is thought to be descended from the Chevalier François de Hadoque , a French sea captain.  <sep>  Q: Is Captain Haddock Scottish?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: It appears to be a stylistic decision on the part of Andy Serkis and Steven Spielberg, and is in keeping with Hollywood's fascination for Scottish accents (see the Vikings in How to Train Your Dragon, Shrek, the lack of a Welsh Smurf). Naturally, fans are up in arms about this, especially those who think he should have an English accent (specifically Cornish), but this is also wrong as Herge wrote him as a Belgian, like his young friend, Tintin. Haddock is thought to be descended from the Chevalier François de Hadoque , a French sea captain.  <sep>  Q: Is Captain Haddock Scottish? A: t appears to be a stylistic decision on the part of Andy Serkis and Steven Spielberg, and is in keeping with Hollywood's fascination for Scottish accents  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is there a particular reason for this?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: It appears to be a stylistic decision on the part of Andy Serkis and Steven Spielberg, and is in keeping with Hollywood's fascination for Scottish accents (see the Vikings in How to Train Your Dragon, Shrek, the lack of a Welsh Smurf). Naturally, fans are up in arms about this, especially those who think he should have an English accent (specifically Cornish), but this is also wrong as Herge wrote him as a Belgian, like his young friend, Tintin. Haddock is thought to be descended from the Chevalier François de Hadoque , a French sea captain.  <sep>  Q: Is Captain Haddock Scottish? A: t appears to be a stylistic decision on the part of Andy Serkis and Steven Spielberg, and is in keeping with Hollywood's fascination for Scottish accents  Q: Is there a particular reason for this? A: see the Vikings in How to Train Your Dragon, Shrek, the lack of a Welsh Smurf  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Shouldn't Captain Haddock have a different accent?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: It appears to be a stylistic decision on the part of Andy Serkis and Steven Spielberg, and is in keeping with Hollywood's fascination for Scottish accents (see the Vikings in How to Train Your Dragon, Shrek, the lack of a Welsh Smurf). Naturally, fans are up in arms about this, especially those who think he should have an English accent (specifically Cornish), but this is also wrong as Herge wrote him as a Belgian, like his young friend, Tintin. Haddock is thought to be descended from the Chevalier François de Hadoque , a French sea captain.  <sep>  Q: Is Captain Haddock Scottish? A: t appears to be a stylistic decision on the part of Andy Serkis and Steven Spielberg, and is in keeping with Hollywood's fascination for Scottish accents  Q: Is there a particular reason for this? A: see the Vikings in How to Train Your Dragon, Shrek, the lack of a Welsh Smurf  Q: Shouldn't Captain Haddock have a different accent? A: Naturally, fans are up in arms about this, especially those who think he should have an English accent  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is Captain Haddock the main character?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: It appears to be a stylistic decision on the part of Andy Serkis and Steven Spielberg, and is in keeping with Hollywood's fascination for Scottish accents (see the Vikings in How to Train Your Dragon, Shrek, the lack of a Welsh Smurf). Naturally, fans are up in arms about this, especially those who think he should have an English accent (specifically Cornish), but this is also wrong as Herge wrote him as a Belgian, like his young friend, Tintin. Haddock is thought to be descended from the Chevalier François de Hadoque , a French sea captain.  <sep>  Q: Is Captain Haddock Scottish? A: t appears to be a stylistic decision on the part of Andy Serkis and Steven Spielberg, and is in keeping with Hollywood's fascination for Scottish accents  Q: Is there a particular reason for this? A: see the Vikings in How to Train Your Dragon, Shrek, the lack of a Welsh Smurf  Q: Shouldn't Captain Haddock have a different accent? A: Naturally, fans are up in arms about this, especially those who think he should have an English accent  Q: Is Captain Haddock the main character? A: Haddock is thought to be descended from the Chevalier François de Hadoque , a French sea captain  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What is Tintin's accent?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: It appears to be a stylistic decision on the part of Andy Serkis and Steven Spielberg, and is in keeping with Hollywood's fascination for Scottish accents (see the Vikings in How to Train Your Dragon, Shrek, the lack of a Welsh Smurf). Naturally, fans are up in arms about this, especially those who think he should have an English accent (specifically Cornish), but this is also wrong as Herge wrote him as a Belgian, like his young friend, Tintin. Haddock is thought to be descended from the Chevalier François de Hadoque , a French sea captain.  <sep>  Q: Is Captain Haddock Scottish? A: t appears to be a stylistic decision on the part of Andy Serkis and Steven Spielberg, and is in keeping with Hollywood's fascination for Scottish accents  Q: Is there a particular reason for this? A: see the Vikings in How to Train Your Dragon, Shrek, the lack of a Welsh Smurf  Q: Shouldn't Captain Haddock have a different accent? A: Naturally, fans are up in arms about this, especially those who think he should have an English accent  Q: Is Captain Haddock the main character? A: Haddock is thought to be descended from the Chevalier François de Hadoque , a French sea captain  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: I don't recollect any reference made in the original series by Herge about Captain Haddock's Scottish heritage. Is there a reason for this?
Output: No
CONTEXT: If I remember correctly, whether Sherlock explained the reason behind him faking his death to John was not shown in the show. It was left for the audience to make an assumption. The way John reacted when he met Sherlock for the first time after that fake incident, we can assume that Sherlock didn't get the time to explain the reason. It can also be assumed that, John realises that it was necessary as he knows Sherlock very well and Sherlock won't go to this extent of faking his own death if there was another way out of the situation. Remember, his only question upon seeing Sherlock (and the reason behind all his anger) was, why he was not informed that Sherlock was still alive.  <sep>  Q: Did Sherlock explain to John why he faked his death?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: If I remember correctly, whether Sherlock explained the reason behind him faking his death to John was not shown in the show. It was left for the audience to make an assumption. The way John reacted when he met Sherlock for the first time after that fake incident, we can assume that Sherlock didn't get the time to explain the reason. It can also be assumed that, John realises that it was necessary as he knows Sherlock very well and Sherlock won't go to this extent of faking his own death if there was another way out of the situation. Remember, his only question upon seeing Sherlock (and the reason behind all his anger) was, why he was not informed that Sherlock was still alive.  <sep>  Q: Did Sherlock explain to John why he faked his death? A: If I remember correctly, whether Sherlock explained the reason behind him faking his death to John was not shown in the show. It was left for the audience to make an assumption  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Doesn't he tell John that is he didn't fake his own death that John would die?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: If I remember correctly, whether Sherlock explained the reason behind him faking his death to John was not shown in the show. It was left for the audience to make an assumption. The way John reacted when he met Sherlock for the first time after that fake incident, we can assume that Sherlock didn't get the time to explain the reason. It can also be assumed that, John realises that it was necessary as he knows Sherlock very well and Sherlock won't go to this extent of faking his own death if there was another way out of the situation. Remember, his only question upon seeing Sherlock (and the reason behind all his anger) was, why he was not informed that Sherlock was still alive.  <sep>  Q: Did Sherlock explain to John why he faked his death? A: If I remember correctly, whether Sherlock explained the reason behind him faking his death to John was not shown in the show. It was left for the audience to make an assumption  Q: Doesn't he tell John that is he didn't fake his own death that John would die? A: The way John reacted when he met Sherlock for the first time after that fake incident, we can assume that Sherlock didn't get the time to explain the reason  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Oh, I see, so what do we know about John?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: If I remember correctly, whether Sherlock explained the reason behind him faking his death to John was not shown in the show. It was left for the audience to make an assumption. The way John reacted when he met Sherlock for the first time after that fake incident, we can assume that Sherlock didn't get the time to explain the reason. It can also be assumed that, John realises that it was necessary as he knows Sherlock very well and Sherlock won't go to this extent of faking his own death if there was another way out of the situation. Remember, his only question upon seeing Sherlock (and the reason behind all his anger) was, why he was not informed that Sherlock was still alive.  <sep>  Q: Did Sherlock explain to John why he faked his death? A: If I remember correctly, whether Sherlock explained the reason behind him faking his death to John was not shown in the show. It was left for the audience to make an assumption  Q: Doesn't he tell John that is he didn't fake his own death that John would die? A: The way John reacted when he met Sherlock for the first time after that fake incident, we can assume that Sherlock didn't get the time to explain the reason  Q: Oh, I see, so what do we know about John? A: It can also be assumed that, John realises that it was necessary as he knows Sherlock very well and Sherlock won't go to this extent of faking his own death  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Okay, anything else you can tell me to help me better understand?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: If I remember correctly, whether Sherlock explained the reason behind him faking his death to John was not shown in the show. It was left for the audience to make an assumption. The way John reacted when he met Sherlock for the first time after that fake incident, we can assume that Sherlock didn't get the time to explain the reason. It can also be assumed that, John realises that it was necessary as he knows Sherlock very well and Sherlock won't go to this extent of faking his own death if there was another way out of the situation. Remember, his only question upon seeing Sherlock (and the reason behind all his anger) was, why he was not informed that Sherlock was still alive.  <sep>  Q: Did Sherlock explain to John why he faked his death? A: If I remember correctly, whether Sherlock explained the reason behind him faking his death to John was not shown in the show. It was left for the audience to make an assumption  Q: Doesn't he tell John that is he didn't fake his own death that John would die? A: The way John reacted when he met Sherlock for the first time after that fake incident, we can assume that Sherlock didn't get the time to explain the reason  Q: Oh, I see, so what do we know about John? A: It can also be assumed that, John realises that it was necessary as he knows Sherlock very well and Sherlock won't go to this extent of faking his own death  Q: Okay, anything else you can tell me to help me better understand? A: his only question upon seeing Sherlock (and the reason behind all his anger) was, why he was not informed that Sherlock was still alive  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: So, John was angry that Sherlock was still alive?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Lucy didn't turn herself into a USB stick. She changed into a kind of 'super magic quantum computer' thing to convert her gained knowledge over time and space into a digital form current day scientists can use. USB stick is easily recognizable to the viewership as a data storage device, and why she didn't give a 'better' more scifi thing such as a tesseract. After this, she disappears, entering a new plane of existence. Which also allowed her to text the police officer "I am everywhere" She has become omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. IE, All powerful, all knowing, and all present. The USB is full of information for humanity to use.  <sep>  Q: Why did Lucy convert herself into a USB at the end of the film?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Lucy didn't turn herself into a USB stick. She changed into a kind of 'super magic quantum computer' thing to convert her gained knowledge over time and space into a digital form current day scientists can use. USB stick is easily recognizable to the viewership as a data storage device, and why she didn't give a 'better' more scifi thing such as a tesseract. After this, she disappears, entering a new plane of existence. Which also allowed her to text the police officer "I am everywhere" She has become omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. IE, All powerful, all knowing, and all present. The USB is full of information for humanity to use.  <sep>  Q: Why did Lucy convert herself into a USB at the end of the film? A: Lucy didn't turn herself into a USB stick  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What did she turn herself into?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Lucy didn't turn herself into a USB stick. She changed into a kind of 'super magic quantum computer' thing to convert her gained knowledge over time and space into a digital form current day scientists can use. USB stick is easily recognizable to the viewership as a data storage device, and why she didn't give a 'better' more scifi thing such as a tesseract. After this, she disappears, entering a new plane of existence. Which also allowed her to text the police officer "I am everywhere" She has become omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. IE, All powerful, all knowing, and all present. The USB is full of information for humanity to use.  <sep>  Q: Why did Lucy convert herself into a USB at the end of the film? A: Lucy didn't turn herself into a USB stick  Q: What did she turn herself into? A: She changed into a kind of 'super magic quantum computer' thing to convert her gained knowledge over time and space into a digital form current day scientists can use  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: So does she die in the end or live on in some form?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Lucy didn't turn herself into a USB stick. She changed into a kind of 'super magic quantum computer' thing to convert her gained knowledge over time and space into a digital form current day scientists can use. USB stick is easily recognizable to the viewership as a data storage device, and why she didn't give a 'better' more scifi thing such as a tesseract. After this, she disappears, entering a new plane of existence. Which also allowed her to text the police officer "I am everywhere" She has become omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. IE, All powerful, all knowing, and all present. The USB is full of information for humanity to use.  <sep>  Q: Why did Lucy convert herself into a USB at the end of the film? A: Lucy didn't turn herself into a USB stick  Q: What did she turn herself into? A: She changed into a kind of 'super magic quantum computer' thing to convert her gained knowledge over time and space into a digital form current day scientists can use  Q: So does she die in the end or live on in some form? A: she disappears, entering a new plane of existence. Which also allowed her to text the police officer "I am everywhere  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What do you think is the message of the film?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Lucy didn't turn herself into a USB stick. She changed into a kind of 'super magic quantum computer' thing to convert her gained knowledge over time and space into a digital form current day scientists can use. USB stick is easily recognizable to the viewership as a data storage device, and why she didn't give a 'better' more scifi thing such as a tesseract. After this, she disappears, entering a new plane of existence. Which also allowed her to text the police officer "I am everywhere" She has become omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. IE, All powerful, all knowing, and all present. The USB is full of information for humanity to use.  <sep>  Q: Why did Lucy convert herself into a USB at the end of the film? A: Lucy didn't turn herself into a USB stick  Q: What did she turn herself into? A: She changed into a kind of 'super magic quantum computer' thing to convert her gained knowledge over time and space into a digital form current day scientists can use  Q: So does she die in the end or live on in some form? A: she disappears, entering a new plane of existence. Which also allowed her to text the police officer "I am everywhere  Q: What do you think is the message of the film? A: The USB is full of information for humanity to use  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do you have any other facts you could share?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Lucy didn't turn herself into a USB stick. She changed into a kind of 'super magic quantum computer' thing to convert her gained knowledge over time and space into a digital form current day scientists can use. USB stick is easily recognizable to the viewership as a data storage device, and why she didn't give a 'better' more scifi thing such as a tesseract. After this, she disappears, entering a new plane of existence. Which also allowed her to text the police officer "I am everywhere" She has become omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. IE, All powerful, all knowing, and all present. The USB is full of information for humanity to use.  <sep>  Q: Why did Lucy convert herself into a USB at the end of the film? A: Lucy didn't turn herself into a USB stick  Q: What did she turn herself into? A: She changed into a kind of 'super magic quantum computer' thing to convert her gained knowledge over time and space into a digital form current day scientists can use  Q: So does she die in the end or live on in some form? A: she disappears, entering a new plane of existence. Which also allowed her to text the police officer "I am everywhere  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What did the policeman do following this revelation?
Output: No
CONTEXT: She didn't know. She only knew that Gamora knew where the stone was, was taken there by Thanos to help obtain it, and didn't come back - she didn't know the conditions under which the soul stone could be obtained (and neither did Thanos, and he thinks he knows everything).  <sep>  Q: Did Nebula know what would happen?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: She didn't know. She only knew that Gamora knew where the stone was, was taken there by Thanos to help obtain it, and didn't come back - she didn't know the conditions under which the soul stone could be obtained (and neither did Thanos, and he thinks he knows everything).  <sep>  Q: Did Nebula know what would happen? A: She didn't know  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Did she know to send them since one loved one had to be sacrificed?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: She didn't know. She only knew that Gamora knew where the stone was, was taken there by Thanos to help obtain it, and didn't come back - she didn't know the conditions under which the soul stone could be obtained (and neither did Thanos, and he thinks he knows everything).  <sep>  Q: Did Nebula know what would happen? A: She didn't know  Q: Did she know to send them since one loved one had to be sacrificed? A: She only knew that Gamora knew where the stone was, was taken there by Thanos to help obtain it, and didn't come back  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is it true that there are two teams?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: She didn't know. She only knew that Gamora knew where the stone was, was taken there by Thanos to help obtain it, and didn't come back - she didn't know the conditions under which the soul stone could be obtained (and neither did Thanos, and he thinks he knows everything).  <sep>  Q: Did Nebula know what would happen? A: She didn't know  Q: Did she know to send them since one loved one had to be sacrificed? A: She only knew that Gamora knew where the stone was, was taken there by Thanos to help obtain it, and didn't come back  Q: Is it true that there are two teams? A: she didn't know the conditions under which the soul stone could be obtained (and neither did Thanos, and he thinks he knows everything  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: But, did Avengers: Endgame have Natasha (Black Widow) and Clint (Hawkeye?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: She didn't know. She only knew that Gamora knew where the stone was, was taken there by Thanos to help obtain it, and didn't come back - she didn't know the conditions under which the soul stone could be obtained (and neither did Thanos, and he thinks he knows everything).  <sep>  Q: Did Nebula know what would happen? A: She didn't know  Q: Did she know to send them since one loved one had to be sacrificed? A: She only knew that Gamora knew where the stone was, was taken there by Thanos to help obtain it, and didn't come back  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Was it just a normal team seperation or did they share a history?
Output: No
CONTEXT: She didn't know. She only knew that Gamora knew where the stone was, was taken there by Thanos to help obtain it, and didn't come back - she didn't know the conditions under which the soul stone could be obtained (and neither did Thanos, and he thinks he knows everything).  <sep>  Q: Did Nebula know what would happen? A: She didn't know  Q: Did she know to send them since one loved one had to be sacrificed? A: She only knew that Gamora knew where the stone was, was taken there by Thanos to help obtain it, and didn't come back  Q: Is it true that there are two teams? A: she didn't know the conditions under which the soul stone could be obtained (and neither did Thanos, and he thinks he knows everything  Q: But, did Avengers: Endgame have Natasha (Black Widow) and Clint (Hawkeye? A: uld be obtained (and neither did Thanos, and he thinks he knows everything  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: And were Black Widow and Hawkeye chosen to the mission Vormir?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Yes, it's done. In Telugu movie Sye (2004), there is a song Urura Urura. The main characters literally sing what is shown on wall posters, cutouts, and hoardings. (I am a Telugu speaking person.) The postures, hoardings are in Telugu and he reads the same. For English for crosschecking, see the video from 1:13 to 1:24.  <sep>  Q: Has this "lyrics with song" style of scene ever been done?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Yes, it's done. In Telugu movie Sye (2004), there is a song Urura Urura. The main characters literally sing what is shown on wall posters, cutouts, and hoardings. (I am a Telugu speaking person.) The postures, hoardings are in Telugu and he reads the same. For English for crosschecking, see the video from 1:13 to 1:24.  <sep>  Q: Has this "lyrics with song" style of scene ever been done? A: In Telugu movie Sye (2004), there is a song Urura Urura. The main characters literally sing what is shown on wall posters, cutouts, and hoardings. (I am a Telugu speaking person  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Did you know that some of the Coffee Run scene has the lyrics in graffiti on the walls?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Yes, it's done. In Telugu movie Sye (2004), there is a song Urura Urura. The main characters literally sing what is shown on wall posters, cutouts, and hoardings. (I am a Telugu speaking person.) The postures, hoardings are in Telugu and he reads the same. For English for crosschecking, see the video from 1:13 to 1:24.  <sep>  Q: Has this "lyrics with song" style of scene ever been done? A: In Telugu movie Sye (2004), there is a song Urura Urura. The main characters literally sing what is shown on wall posters, cutouts, and hoardings. (I am a Telugu speaking person  Q: Did you know that some of the Coffee Run scene has the lyrics in graffiti on the walls? A: The main characters literally sing what is shown on wall posters, cutouts, and hoardings. (I am a Telugu speaking person  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Has this ever been done before or was it created by Edgar Wright?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Yes, it's done. In Telugu movie Sye (2004), there is a song Urura Urura. The main characters literally sing what is shown on wall posters, cutouts, and hoardings. (I am a Telugu speaking person.) The postures, hoardings are in Telugu and he reads the same. For English for crosschecking, see the video from 1:13 to 1:24.  <sep>  Q: Has this "lyrics with song" style of scene ever been done? A: In Telugu movie Sye (2004), there is a song Urura Urura. The main characters literally sing what is shown on wall posters, cutouts, and hoardings. (I am a Telugu speaking person  Q: Did you know that some of the Coffee Run scene has the lyrics in graffiti on the walls? A: The main characters literally sing what is shown on wall posters, cutouts, and hoardings. (I am a Telugu speaking person  Q: Has this ever been done before or was it created by Edgar Wright? A: it's done  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: So, this is just an opening scene for the movie Baby DriveR?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Off base, military police have the authority to arrest only soldiers. On a military reservation or base, military police have jurisdiction and can arrest anyone, including civilians. Movies like Presidio or Jack Reacher that show the MPs arresting civilians outside of a military reservation are not realistic. In such situations it is the policy of the military police to coordinate with civilian police to make such arrests.  <sep>  Q: Can military police arrest civilians on US soil?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Off base, military police have the authority to arrest only soldiers. On a military reservation or base, military police have jurisdiction and can arrest anyone, including civilians. Movies like Presidio or Jack Reacher that show the MPs arresting civilians outside of a military reservation are not realistic. In such situations it is the policy of the military police to coordinate with civilian police to make such arrests.  <sep>  Q: Can military police arrest civilians on US soil? A: Off base, military police have the authority to arrest only soldiers  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: I thought MPs were only allowed to operate within military personnel?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Off base, military police have the authority to arrest only soldiers. On a military reservation or base, military police have jurisdiction and can arrest anyone, including civilians. Movies like Presidio or Jack Reacher that show the MPs arresting civilians outside of a military reservation are not realistic. In such situations it is the policy of the military police to coordinate with civilian police to make such arrests.  <sep>  Q: Can military police arrest civilians on US soil? A: Off base, military police have the authority to arrest only soldiers  Q: I thought MPs were only allowed to operate within military personnel? A: Movies like Presidio or Jack Reacher that show the MPs arresting civilians outside of a military reservation are not realistic  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Ok, so this wouldn't happen in real life you are saying then?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Off base, military police have the authority to arrest only soldiers. On a military reservation or base, military police have jurisdiction and can arrest anyone, including civilians. Movies like Presidio or Jack Reacher that show the MPs arresting civilians outside of a military reservation are not realistic. In such situations it is the policy of the military police to coordinate with civilian police to make such arrests.  <sep>  Q: Can military police arrest civilians on US soil? A: Off base, military police have the authority to arrest only soldiers  Q: I thought MPs were only allowed to operate within military personnel? A: Movies like Presidio or Jack Reacher that show the MPs arresting civilians outside of a military reservation are not realistic  Q: Ok, so this wouldn't happen in real life you are saying then? A: In such situations it is the policy of the military police to coordinate with civilian police to make such arrests  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do they have to coordinate with civilian police first or can they do it without notifying them?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: "when Rent reads Diane's letter"... So Diane had Rent's address, and Spud knew Diane was in touch with him when he speaks to her while mashed up on the kerb... everybody seems to know everybody in Leith and within the core group of 'best friends' these details are bound to get about, especially when you, perhaps, have a criminal psycho on the run demanding the London address from any one of these characters. Also, the film implies (and the book states specifically) that these guys spend a lot of time in London and that Sick Boy already has many 'contacts' down there (in the film this is primarily shown through his relationship with the hotel owner in the climax).  <sep>  Q: How did Begbie come to know where Rent was living?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: "when Rent reads Diane's letter"... So Diane had Rent's address, and Spud knew Diane was in touch with him when he speaks to her while mashed up on the kerb... everybody seems to know everybody in Leith and within the core group of 'best friends' these details are bound to get about, especially when you, perhaps, have a criminal psycho on the run demanding the London address from any one of these characters. Also, the film implies (and the book states specifically) that these guys spend a lot of time in London and that Sick Boy already has many 'contacts' down there (in the film this is primarily shown through his relationship with the hotel owner in the climax).  <sep>  Q: How did Begbie come to know where Rent was living? A: Diane had Rent's address, and Spud knew Diane was in touch with him when he speaks to her while mashed up on the kerb... everybody seems to know everybody in Leith  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: DO they all stay in one place?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: "when Rent reads Diane's letter"... So Diane had Rent's address, and Spud knew Diane was in touch with him when he speaks to her while mashed up on the kerb... everybody seems to know everybody in Leith and within the core group of 'best friends' these details are bound to get about, especially when you, perhaps, have a criminal psycho on the run demanding the London address from any one of these characters. Also, the film implies (and the book states specifically) that these guys spend a lot of time in London and that Sick Boy already has many 'contacts' down there (in the film this is primarily shown through his relationship with the hotel owner in the climax).  <sep>  Q: How did Begbie track Rents?
Output: No
CONTEXT: "when Rent reads Diane's letter"... So Diane had Rent's address, and Spud knew Diane was in touch with him when he speaks to her while mashed up on the kerb... everybody seems to know everybody in Leith and within the core group of 'best friends' these details are bound to get about, especially when you, perhaps, have a criminal psycho on the run demanding the London address from any one of these characters. Also, the film implies (and the book states specifically) that these guys spend a lot of time in London and that Sick Boy already has many 'contacts' down there (in the film this is primarily shown through his relationship with the hotel owner in the climax).  <sep>  Q: How did Begbie come to know where Rent was living? A: Diane had Rent's address, and Spud knew Diane was in touch with him when he speaks to her while mashed up on the kerb... everybody seems to know everybody in Leith  Q: DO they all stay in one place? A: the film implies (and the book states specifically) that these guys spend a lot of time in London and that Sick Boy already has many 'contacts' down there  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How many contacts exactly?
Output: No
CONTEXT: I think that 90 seconds is just the amount of time it takes to take out the tracker. The reason they wanted to remove the tracker was to implant their own tracker into Lane. Lane, should he have gotten free, would've removed the tracker himself but now if he were to be freed he wouldn't know that he still had a tracker on him. This new tracker having been put in place by the IMF and not the Parisian authorities that were holding Lane and trying to get him back from Hunt's team making not only Lane but Walker not realizing that Lane was still being tracked. I also believe they did this in order to set Lane's tracker as visible again and when they set the drone away with Lane's tracker to keep the authorities on a goose chase thinking that Lane was still on the move while Hunt's team escaped with Lane. When they finally set the drone free you can hear helicopters passing by overhead. They drew the authorities closer to the tracker and then set it free instead of them trying to follow them to the sewers.  <sep>  Q: Why did Hunt's team set a 90 seconds limit to take out the tracker from Lane's neck?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I think that 90 seconds is just the amount of time it takes to take out the tracker. The reason they wanted to remove the tracker was to implant their own tracker into Lane. Lane, should he have gotten free, would've removed the tracker himself but now if he were to be freed he wouldn't know that he still had a tracker on him. This new tracker having been put in place by the IMF and not the Parisian authorities that were holding Lane and trying to get him back from Hunt's team making not only Lane but Walker not realizing that Lane was still being tracked. I also believe they did this in order to set Lane's tracker as visible again and when they set the drone away with Lane's tracker to keep the authorities on a goose chase thinking that Lane was still on the move while Hunt's team escaped with Lane. When they finally set the drone free you can hear helicopters passing by overhead. They drew the authorities closer to the tracker and then set it free instead of them trying to follow them to the sewers.  <sep>  Q: Why did Hunt's team set a 90 seconds limit to take out the tracker from Lane's neck? A: I think that 90 seconds is just the amount of time it takes to take out the tracker  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why did they want to remove the tracker?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I think that 90 seconds is just the amount of time it takes to take out the tracker. The reason they wanted to remove the tracker was to implant their own tracker into Lane. Lane, should he have gotten free, would've removed the tracker himself but now if he were to be freed he wouldn't know that he still had a tracker on him. This new tracker having been put in place by the IMF and not the Parisian authorities that were holding Lane and trying to get him back from Hunt's team making not only Lane but Walker not realizing that Lane was still being tracked. I also believe they did this in order to set Lane's tracker as visible again and when they set the drone away with Lane's tracker to keep the authorities on a goose chase thinking that Lane was still on the move while Hunt's team escaped with Lane. When they finally set the drone free you can hear helicopters passing by overhead. They drew the authorities closer to the tracker and then set it free instead of them trying to follow them to the sewers.  <sep>  Q: Why did Hunt's team set a 90 seconds limit to take out the tracker from Lane's neck? A: I think that 90 seconds is just the amount of time it takes to take out the tracker  Q: Why did they want to remove the tracker? A: The reason they wanted to remove the tracker was to implant their own tracker into Lane  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why didn't he just remove the tracker himself?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I think that 90 seconds is just the amount of time it takes to take out the tracker. The reason they wanted to remove the tracker was to implant their own tracker into Lane. Lane, should he have gotten free, would've removed the tracker himself but now if he were to be freed he wouldn't know that he still had a tracker on him. This new tracker having been put in place by the IMF and not the Parisian authorities that were holding Lane and trying to get him back from Hunt's team making not only Lane but Walker not realizing that Lane was still being tracked. I also believe they did this in order to set Lane's tracker as visible again and when they set the drone away with Lane's tracker to keep the authorities on a goose chase thinking that Lane was still on the move while Hunt's team escaped with Lane. When they finally set the drone free you can hear helicopters passing by overhead. They drew the authorities closer to the tracker and then set it free instead of them trying to follow them to the sewers.  <sep>  Q: Why did Hunt's team set a 90 seconds limit to take out the tracker from Lane's neck? A: I think that 90 seconds is just the amount of time it takes to take out the tracker  Q: Why did they want to remove the tracker? A: The reason they wanted to remove the tracker was to implant their own tracker into Lane  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How hard was it remove and implant the new one?
Output: No
CONTEXT: There is no published in or out of universe explanation about Guinan/her people and Q/the Q. It was never expanded on in the show, movies, in canon or non-canon books or video games, or any of the released production notes or interviews. Given how extensive the information we have about TNG and star trek in general, compared to other shows, that's very telling. Production must not want it to be known. It was a plot point that was abandoned and never brought up again in any shape or form. It almost makes it a discontinuity.  <sep>  Q: What was the prior relationship between Q and Guinan?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: There is no published in or out of universe explanation about Guinan/her people and Q/the Q. It was never expanded on in the show, movies, in canon or non-canon books or video games, or any of the released production notes or interviews. Given how extensive the information we have about TNG and star trek in general, compared to other shows, that's very telling. Production must not want it to be known. It was a plot point that was abandoned and never brought up again in any shape or form. It almost makes it a discontinuity.  <sep>  Q: What was the prior relationship between Q and Guinan? A: There is no published in or out of universe explanation about Guinan/her people and Q/the Q  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Was Guinan's true identity every revealed?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: There is no published in or out of universe explanation about Guinan/her people and Q/the Q. It was never expanded on in the show, movies, in canon or non-canon books or video games, or any of the released production notes or interviews. Given how extensive the information we have about TNG and star trek in general, compared to other shows, that's very telling. Production must not want it to be known. It was a plot point that was abandoned and never brought up again in any shape or form. It almost makes it a discontinuity.  <sep>  Q: What was the prior relationship between Q and Guinan? A: There is no published in or out of universe explanation about Guinan/her people and Q/the Q  Q: Was Guinan's true identity every revealed? A: It was a plot point that was abandoned and never brought up again in any shape or form. It almost makes it a discontinuity  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: So, were they originally intending for Guinan to have a certain back-story?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: There is no published in or out of universe explanation about Guinan/her people and Q/the Q. It was never expanded on in the show, movies, in canon or non-canon books or video games, or any of the released production notes or interviews. Given how extensive the information we have about TNG and star trek in general, compared to other shows, that's very telling. Production must not want it to be known. It was a plot point that was abandoned and never brought up again in any shape or form. It almost makes it a discontinuity.  <sep>  Q: What was the prior relationship between Q and Guinan? A: There is no published in or out of universe explanation about Guinan/her people and Q/the Q  Q: Was Guinan's true identity every revealed? A: It was a plot point that was abandoned and never brought up again in any shape or form. It almost makes it a discontinuity  Q: So, were they originally intending for Guinan to have a certain back-story? A: Given how extensive the information we have about TNG and star trek in general, compared to other shows, that's very telling. Production must not want it to be known  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Oh, I see, so TNG is The Next Generation?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: There is no published in or out of universe explanation about Guinan/her people and Q/the Q. It was never expanded on in the show, movies, in canon or non-canon books or video games, or any of the released production notes or interviews. Given how extensive the information we have about TNG and star trek in general, compared to other shows, that's very telling. Production must not want it to be known. It was a plot point that was abandoned and never brought up again in any shape or form. It almost makes it a discontinuity.  <sep>  Q: What was the prior relationship between Q and Guinan? A: There is no published in or out of universe explanation about Guinan/her people and Q/the Q  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Did Guinan have any defensive powers against q's powers?
Output: No
CONTEXT: There is no published in or out of universe explanation about Guinan/her people and Q/the Q. It was never expanded on in the show, movies, in canon or non-canon books or video games, or any of the released production notes or interviews. Given how extensive the information we have about TNG and star trek in general, compared to other shows, that's very telling. Production must not want it to be known. It was a plot point that was abandoned and never brought up again in any shape or form. It almost makes it a discontinuity.  <sep>  Q: What was the prior relationship between Q and Guinan? A: There is no published in or out of universe explanation about Guinan/her people and Q/the Q  Q: Was Guinan's true identity every revealed? A: It was a plot point that was abandoned and never brought up again in any shape or form. It almost makes it a discontinuity  Q: So, were they originally intending for Guinan to have a certain back-story? A: Given how extensive the information we have about TNG and star trek in general, compared to other shows, that's very telling. Production must not want it to be known  Q: Oh, I see, so TNG is The Next Generation? A: mpared to other shows, that's very telling. Production must not want it to be known  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why does Q warn Picard to get rid of Guinan?
Output: No
CONTEXT: He usually runs unopposed. The only time he did run against anyone he lost but that was to Sideshow Bob. Quimby was re-instated when Bob is found guilty of fraud and imprisoned. He also survives a recall election, with no candidate in the race against him garnering the five percent necessary to force a recall  <sep>  Q: Why is Mayor Quimby still mayor?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: He usually runs unopposed. The only time he did run against anyone he lost but that was to Sideshow Bob. Quimby was re-instated when Bob is found guilty of fraud and imprisoned. He also survives a recall election, with no candidate in the race against him garnering the five percent necessary to force a recall  <sep>  Q: Why is Mayor Quimby still mayor? A: He usually runs unopposed  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Has it ever been addressed on the show?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: He usually runs unopposed. The only time he did run against anyone he lost but that was to Sideshow Bob. Quimby was re-instated when Bob is found guilty of fraud and imprisoned. He also survives a recall election, with no candidate in the race against him garnering the five percent necessary to force a recall  <sep>  Q: Why is Mayor Quimby still mayor? A: He usually runs unopposed  Q: Has it ever been addressed on the show? A: Sideshow Bob. Qu  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why do they not address how inappropriate he is for the job on the show?
Output: Yes